Evaluate any professional against any role — from entry-level to C-suite — against verified public evidence. Not what the candidate says about themselves. What the record actually shows.
A resume is a self-portrait. It is written by the candidate, for the candidate, with every incentive to round up. Titles get inflated, dates get blurred, side projects become “led,” and the gaps simply disappear. Studies of hiring consistently find that a meaningful share of resumes contain claims that don't hold up — and the ones that matter most (scope of ownership, depth of a skill, why they really left) are exactly the ones a resume can't be trusted to tell you. You can't verify a PDF by reading it harder.
MentionFox candidate evaluation flips the source of truth. Instead of grading what someone wrote about themselves, it assesses a person against the public record — the work, writing, contributions, history, and coverage that exist independently of any application. Every meaningful claim in the report is sourced and cited, so you are reading evidence, not assertions. It needs no cooperation from the candidate and no access to private systems: if it's verifiable in public, it counts; if it isn't, the report says so rather than guessing.
The role parsing matters: the same person can be a strong fit for one role and a weak fit for another, so the evaluation is always relative to the job you described, not a generic score. Give it a detailed role and you get a sharper read; give it “VP Sales” and you get a blunter one.
MentionFox gathers a person's verifiable footprint from across the open web and tailors what it looks for to their field — published work and research for academics, code contributions and technical talks for engineers, professional registrations and credentials for regulated professions, public filings and track record for finance and executive roles, press and speaking history for leaders. It then weighs that evidence against the role's requirements. The point is breadth and corroboration: a claim backed by several independent public traces is treated very differently from one with nothing behind it.
An overall match between the person's verified public profile and the role you described. 70–100 Strong 40–69 Mixed 0–39 Poor
A few paragraphs assessing suitability for the specific role, grounded in what the evidence supports.
Each required skill rated by demonstrated depth — expert, deep, working, surface, or none — with the public evidence that supports each rating. This is the heart of the “verified, not claimed” promise: a skill counts when the record shows it, not when the resume lists it.
Critical, moderate, and minor gaps between the role and the verified profile, each with a practical mitigation so a gap becomes a question, not a guess.
Tailored questions that target the identified gaps, each with a note on why to ask it and what a strong answer sounds like — so the interview probes exactly where the evidence is thin.
A side-by-side of what the record clearly supports and what it doesn't.
A scan for public red flags, controversy, and other signals worth a second look — surfaced with their sources so you can judge for yourself.
When there is enough public material to support it, a read on communication style and likely culture fit. When there isn't, this section is held back rather than invented.
Start with the fit score for a headline, then go straight to the skills match table — that's where the evidence lives. Every rating links to what supports it, so you can click through and verify the claim yourself rather than taking the score on faith. Treat the gap analysis and interview questions as your prep sheet: they tell you precisely where to push in the conversation.
Crucially, the evaluation is honest about how much it found. When a person has a thin public footprint, the report flags lower confidence and leans on the interview questions instead of overstating a score. Absence of evidence is reported as absence of evidence — never spun into a conclusion. A quiet public profile isn't a red flag and isn't a green light; it's a prompt to ask more in person.
Three things change when the source of truth is the public record. First, you can trust the inputs — nobody edited the evidence to win the job. Second, you interview better, because you walk in already knowing where the real gaps are instead of discovering them three weeks into the role. Third, it's fair and consistent: every candidate is held to the same evidentiary standard, and every claim that drives the score is one you can inspect. It is not a background check and it is not a substitute for talking to references or to the person — it is the layer that makes those conversations sharper and the decision more defensible.
Public evidence is powerful, but it has edges. MentionFox evaluates what is publicly verifiable; it does not access private HR records, sealed information, or anything behind a login, and it does not read minds about motivation or fit beyond what the record reasonably supports. People with deliberately minimal public presence will produce thinner reports, and the tool says so. It is designed to give you a defensible, sourced starting point — not a verdict to outsource the decision to.
| Format | Best for |
|---|---|
| Sharing with hiring managers, attaching to candidate profiles | |
| DOCX | Editing and customizing before sharing |
| CSV | Spreadsheet analysis and bulk tracking |
| Share link | Quick review — no login needed, works in any browser |
Exports are white-label on Agency plans — your branding, not ours. Bring reports into your applicant tracking system with the Greenhouse, Lever, Workday, and BambooHR guides.
Each evaluation costs a set number of credits, and if there isn't enough public information to produce a meaningful assessment, you aren't charged for it. Candidate evaluation is available on plans that include the research suite. For current allowances and credit details, see the pricing page.